One of the benefit of UBI—indeed, for some people, one of the explicit purposes of UBI—is that it drastically reduces the need to fear that moving will be too expensive for you.

It is, of course, possible to implement a UBI that is too low to make it practical to move, but I would argue that in that case, it is missing the "Basic" part, because it does not provide enough to meet real people's Basic needs.

I think the concern many people have (and rightfully so) is that the economy is not a static system. Any artificial offsets (UBI) will just get priced into every agent's value calculation.

The thing that gives "Capital" power is that you have it, no one else does, and you're trying to transform it into some arrangement that over time creates more value than it consumes.

The transformation applied can absolutely be done incorrectly, making subsequent capital value transformations more difficult to accomplish profitably given greater constraints on the means the capital allocator can bring to bear.

Nothing about UBI substantially changes the nature of that system, therefore, the real problem to be solved, (the asymmetry of means between capital allocators) given a system that optimizes toward capital control centralization (more capital fewer hands) without also being paired with wealth ceilings via tax extraction at the top and reinjection at the bottom.

> is that it drastically reduces the need to fear that moving will be too expensive for you

Sure, that would definitely be one area where UBI would assist with but as I mentioned in another comment - it would kind of defeat the purpose of the UBI if people had to spend it on mitigating the consequences of people taking advantage of them receiving UBI

The empowerment of poor people to move may be enough to just discourage landlords from raising rents in the first place. It's like when workers join unions and increase their bargaining power: even those not in the union benefit.

The pro UBI arguments completely miss the 2nd level effects - the predators will come out in droves and the less intelligent will be conned into long term contracts that consume their entire UBI. UBI is a gift to the wealthy - it gives them a huge pool to steal from.

Possibly, but that sounds like a problem which could be solved separately, perhaps with stricter laws about what constitutes an onerous contract; we need not discount UBI entirely because it causes some problems, since the problems UBI causes might be better than the problems we have without UBI, and the problems with UBI might be easier to solve.

If the issue of predator treatment of consumers were addressed first, a large amount of the pressure for UBI will evaporate. The poor are poor due to predator capitalism, not due to any lack of skills on their behalf.

It might be that UBI is politically potentially possible, while the other issues are not politically viable to solve in the present situation. Politics is the art of the possible.

That's a really bad reason to keep poor people poor and a very good reason to crack down on the behaviour of rich people.

Unfortunately, that's had a really poor track record this past century or so.

I don't have a good answer either... I just agree that UBI seems like a net positive.

Being poor isn't a lack of intelligence, it's a lack of money. No doubt a few people will get conned out of their money, but for the majority it would be a net positive to have more money at their disposal.

People already get preyed on every second of every day. I don't think there would be the surge of losses you imagine.

That will absolutely happen sometimes the question is how common it will be vs how many other people will be able to use those resources to get themselves into a better situation.

If people had UBI they would be able to spend that money moving if they wanted to, and they'd have money to travel and visit family further away.

Even if the cost of moving/visiting family were offset by the rent savings - which very possibly would not be - it would kind of defeat the purpose of the UBI if people had to spend it on mitigating the consequences of people taking advantage of them receiving UBI

It's easier for poor people to move than rich, because when you have nothing, all you need to do is buy a bus ticket.

Poor people don't have functional families or communities of support in a lot of cases, that's why they're poor.

oof. Ignoring the uncomfortable and unsympathetic assumptions you are making, I will again reiterate what I have in other comments:

it would kind of defeat the purpose of the UBI if people had to spend it on mitigating the consequences of people taking advantage of them receiving UBI

Your argument makes no sense. We can just replace "UBI" with "job".

It would kind of defeat the purpose of making money with a job if people had to spend their earned money on mitigating the consequences of people taking advantage of them receiving money.

So... the takeaway is strive to earn less so you get preyed on less?

> We can just replace "UBI" with "job".

I don't agree. Jobs are much more than just income. They provide purpose, skills (possibly for life and future work), experience (in general and for acquiring future work), possible medical or investment benefits, connections (social and for future work) etc. All these things mean that there are many situations where earning less or having to move would be outweighed by the benefits.

This is not the case in my example - UBI is JUST income. If the providing of UBI creates more problems and negates the income, then it loses its benefit and purpose (not saying this would be a guaranteed problem inherent to UBI, but that was the premise of the OP)

I'm not making any assumptions, I have quite a bit of experience being poor. How about you?

I would suggest that, whether or not you identify with/have been part of a group, you consider that your perspective/experience very possibly is not the experience of everyone else in that group.